Critical Geography

The scholarly field defined as "critical geography," or more accurately "critical geographies," has experienced a spectacular expansion and tended to become an umbrella gathering a very heterogeneous array of contributions. While labels like critical geography are not always displayed explicitly by scholars, rare are those who would not claim for drawing upon some form of critical thinking, and the geography journals whose editorial programmes are broadly inspired by critical or radical theory are increasingly well established. This expansion poses first the problem of defining what is "critical," what is "radical" and what is "mainstream," considering that the boundaries between these realms, if ever defined, are increasingly uncertain and blurred. This uncertainty also implies interrogations on how to enhance socially engaged scholarly approaches beyond the academy and its frontiers, defined by the social status of the academics and by the limits of academic main dissemination practices, such as publishing and conferencing in English. In the following text, I discuss limits and potentialities of the places and networks where current critical geographical knowledge is prevalently produced. Then, I analyse the variety and plurality of the works carried out in this field and claim for decolonizing geographical scholarship, including its critical and radical strands. This decolonization includes giving more consideration to output produced by non-Anglophone scholars, especially from the South, a problem which has been widely discussed at the International Conferences of Critical Geography but not definitively resolved hitherto. Glossary Academic extractivism. Extractivism is widely studied as a colonial and neo-colonial attitude to predate the natural resources of certain regions (especially in the Global South) at the

Environment and Planning A, 2012

Thinking the spatiotemporal Over the past decades critical geography-the varieties of geographical scholarship that challenge different forms of oppression and exploitation, promote tolerance and difference, and seek to contribute to progressive social change-has become a vital fi eld within human geography. Critical geographers have been successful in demonstrating that processes of social differentiation, marginalisation, and exclusion are inherently spatial: differences and inequalities along lines of gender, class, race/ethnicity, sexuality, age, religion, dis/ability, and so forth, and space are inextricably linked to, and constitutive of, each other. However, the extent to which such differentiations and inequalities are intrinsically spatiotemporal has attracted less attention.

The 18th Annual Critical Geography Conference: Constructing a Radical Politics in an Age of Crisis took place in November 4-6, 2011, at Clark University, in Worcester Massachusetts. In this report the conference organizers summarize the results and offer some insights on the challenges and opportunities of mobilizing politically through the critical geography community. We argue that institutionalized actions within the academy, like this conference, are political events. We highlight the need for critical geographers to focus using the intellectual, financial, and institutional resources of the academy to facilitate activism and open new political spaces.

Area, 1999

Environment and Planning A, 2000

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 2000

The politics of constructing an international group of critical geographers and a common space of action À Very recently, I had the opportunity of spending eight months of my sabbatical in Britain, in search of the most relevant theoretical and political paths in social sciences in general, and geography in particular. There were, of course, a lot of surprises, especially in the form and direction that discussion has taken over the last five years. In my perception, the most important was the focus of the`left' (if we can still speak of one) on the necessity for generating a new project which is different from the neoliberal claims of efficiency and growth. Certainly there was not one unified position. On the contrary, there were many visions of how to achieve new paths in society. But what was particularly significant was the mantra demanding an alternative view with which to face social change and transformation. My surprise was twofold. First, I realized that the disturbances caused by neoliberalism are important in the societies of the North as well as in the South. Seattle was an inspiring event, even if it had neither the form nor the intensity of some movements. But, second, I recognized this interest as part of the project we initiated in Vancouver in August 1997: to construct a group of critical geographers searching for the generation of a new reality. The slogan we have adopted since then,`a world to win', makes much more sense to me now. Then I thought it referred only to us, the countries of the South and East. But, on the contrary, there is a Northern and Western world waiting for new trends and orientations for the future. We have to win this part of the world as well. As my reflection continued, I thought, are we going to be just one more of all those groups discussing the subject? What is our specificity or relation to other possible groups or associations? I found our differences from other groups or intellectuals were three. First, we are not a professional association or a union: we opened the call to geographers and nongeographers interested in the problems of the world. We are constructing an interdisciplinary group to fulfil a project and not only gathering together for exchange of ideas. Second, we are not only imagining a project. We are also attempting to build a geographical practice as a political tool to develop a more egalitarian world. Third, we are internationalist, as we aspire to join as many geographers/ participants from all over the world to have an impact on its transformation. We face some problems that we have been discussing since 1997. First, how are we going to name ourselvesöa group, net, network, or union? Second, is academic activity a political tool for change or is our practice only political if we are linked with social movements? And third, what sort of project will it be and how are we going to generate it, if we face such different realities? The answers to those questions might be diverse; but in fact I think they are interconnected. I will try to present my position, in order to generate, hopefully, a debate and possibly a consensus. The construction of a group, association, net, or network of international geographers, including colleges from all over the world, has two main challenges to overcome: we must create a joint project, while simultaneously perceiving differences in conceptions depending upon our cultural backgrounds and world perspectives. It is then a double exercise of generating consensus but, at the same time, with respect to Guest editorial

Antipode, 2009

This paper throws down a challenge to radical geography and invites a selection of leading geographers to respond. It proposes that radical or critical geography cannot escape normative foundations in terms of some conception of the human good or flourishing, and that this is not necessarily at odds with the descriptive and explanatory aims of social science. Various attempts to define and justify critical thought without such a conception are shown to be deficient, and incapable of distinguishing oppression from well-being. Objections that such a project will be subjective, ethnocentric, essentialist and implicitly authoritarian are discussed and rejected. Normative thinking needs to go beyond liberal concern with freedom, to address what Sen and Nussbaum term "capabilities"-the range of things people need to be able to have and do to flourish. The power of this kind of normative thinking is illustrated by reference to examples from development studies. The paper concludes with some basic questions for radical geographers.